tv [untitled] July 22, 2010 6:30pm-7:00pm PST
the rest of the neighborhood. i do not think anybody here is a big fan, but hopefully someone in the room was not the person who belted or on it, but i do not think it is an attractive buildings, -- who built it, but this one is. if there are setbacks, the setbacks are as they should be. we do gain three units were there is one unit, but there have been changes that have been noted.
as was pointed out, the top unit was 1800 square feet, which is about as small as you are going to get, so i think you are going to get a good job with that. in terms of height, it is slightly taller than the one side of it and somewhat shorter to the other side of it. they did the top units, and this survey has been presented.
about a third is the low 40, but that goes on to some larger street. it does tell you about the neighborhood. i think how it relates are probably the most important part of the building. it does not fit in as well, so i am in favor of the project. i think the rear yard is probably an important. it think there is an alternate design also, we are taught that we keep the top unit smaller, and we make things step down to maximize the sun exposure, and
some of having things ago of a way out to the street for all the way to the rear yard. i think those are important things to note, so i would generally be supportive. we will see what the other commissioners have to say if you're a good >> i am generally in accepting of the staff analysis from some cover 29 of 2006, and it is intriguing this has gone through a number of internal reviews and there have been varying results of those reviews. maybe some were not on the same in building of some that had similar heights, and i took this
buildings in the backyard areas, and that would never happen today. given that, i think lowering the height and expanding the building is keeping with development pattern. one alternative is to expand into the backyard. i am particularly in favor of exploring the possibility of expanding the building into the backyard. >> is that a motion? >> i would like to make it a
motion. >> i also agree with the analysis. they're particularly concerned with the building as being unfortunate. i cannot believe you can do those savings. it is a 40-foot side yard, so i would support the analysis. >> i am not exactly sure, but it appears as though the higher buildings. >> the properties are narrow.
>> the other thing i would like to point out, you could have a three-story building, and just taking the floor off, i think makes it a little less desirable in a lot of ways, and i do not know if that would be the best solution. probably a better one would be to try to minimize the height for a couple feet. i do not know if that could be done. i am sure that things have been looked at, and 40 feet is as low as you are going to be able to make that theory does -- to make
that. comissioner borden: i support the motion. i do not know the exact answer. i think it needs every design to make it the appropriate height. it looks kind of bizarre, so i think there would have to be a redesign done peering ahead -- redesign done. could you ever design anything in a three story plan? no. >> no, we did not. >> the hard thing is i do not think we are in a position to figure of the answer today, because i think the result is not necessarily what we want. i do not know if we should
continue it for the design to come back, but i think it is too arbitrary to not specify the rest of it, and i think the best use would be to continue the project with the instructions unless we can have a new building to look at whatever it is. we need to scope this out more and give them direction. i do comissioner antonini: not know if that was a motion. -- i do not know if that was a motion. >> we are just asking for clarity. >> if we word soon, but the
design that might incorporate the amount of floors you need? >> on my own house -- we could reduce the height of this to 38 feet and accommodate the same amount of units and maintain the space. >> that would be something i would like to see. >> i know we could do that, because i just did it. >> the motion on the floor is to reduce it. that is what i heard. everything wait one second. we're trying to get discussion so we can get to a place where if there is a motion, it is one that provides clear instruction
to staff. >> if we are trying to avoid using the word floor but talk about height, we are talking about a substantial reduction, not 2 feet. >> it would be very helpful if you could articulate where that is. the building is 40 feet now. are you saying it should be 30 feet? >> 30 by 32. >> we're also saying they can expand the envelope. to accommodate additional square footage. >> basically, we are willing to get rid of the rear yard and
come back. >> as i understand, it is to reduce it with the understanding you would recommend a rear yard variants to accommodate the square foot? some additional square foot? >> yes. price if you could comment on to the rigid comment as to the feasibility of -- if you could comment as to the feasibility. >> they have come up with a solution that we are very close to being able to accept this and saving the neighbors one big window, stepping its down, there is 3 feet they want us to stick back, which is not the
acceptable to us, but we would like a 33-foot structure to match the height next door, and i think if we do that, we are there. >> are you going to go 33 on that motion? >> that is all right. comissioner moore: i wanted to reflect on what you said. it concerned me there was an expression of distrust in the department. we are a revolving door. some of us make it to eight years, but some of its has a
common vision with the public trust, and while they often do not agree with mr. williams, i think it is well-taken, and i have heard from quite a few people who have reasonable efforts to really get across the message. i think it should instill a certain amount of trust in you. i am a little surprised that the department really changed its basic position on it. i do not believe this particular building is an exceptionally good building. it is rather bulky, and it is
quite civilized but clear. i want to express my hope that should we come to a situation like this again there will be a little bit more interaction between the commission or educating the public that opinions have changed and the reasons why. it was basically the department supporting something different from what was approved. >> when the department's respectfully disagree, i believe this is very consistent and not take a deal, and we have a disagreement of the design of this particular building. >> i guess we have a motion. >> i guess the only question,
and this is more to the neighbors. there was something almost close to being negotiated, and what it makes sense to continue is that you would get what was discussed before or with the approach that we have come up with here is a better approach, and i am not clear on that. i am not clear if it is more mutually of beneficial or if you were there at the same place versus the decision we are making here, and if he does not give me some insight into that, maybe the architect can give me some insight. obviously, we could continue, and if you could come together, we would not have to see this at all. >> that would be preferable. >> i would rather not have us make the decision, because it is more arbitrary.
>> i agree. >> i guess what we are asking is we have given some direction. it sounds like you are getting close to some kind of an agreement, and if we give you until august 12, we could schedule that for the next hearing date. perhaps we will not see it again. >> i represent the party across the street. we got together as a
neighborhood to try to resolve the matter. it was a difficult task getting 30 neighbors together and to come up with a proposal to the sponsor. it took almost 10 days to respond, and if it seems the sponsor was giving us a response in a timely manner and actually rejected us. >> that is not the question. if you do not want to do it, we're going to carry on the motion.
>> we have a 12-foot alley. >> what was important to the neighbors is if it was allowed for the project instead of a fourth story, it should be at the height of two stories. the two stories to be sent back 3 feet so the rear yard of the subject property would actually be on the alley in an enlarged sidewalk, so it has a wall of buildings, but as you move down, the wall opens up as you go forward. it is a bigger set back and we were looking for.
it is important to the design. >> we have other projects to hear. >> here is the thing. that is one particular design you and the neighbors have come up with. the project sponsor may not agree with that specific thing in front of you, so there is still going to be some consideration. are they willing to enter into that at this point, >> we are interested in anything that would make a fourth story. >> i think given the circumstances you should take
control of the situation you're a dead i thought i was here to read-emphasize -- take control of the situation. i thought i was here to reemphasize. we did come close to reaching an agreement. we want to go back to the existing retaining wall and go back 33 feet. >> that seems to be where we are headed. whatever design, we will be seeing it again. >> is it possible since we are really close, the width of the podium we are arguing about, do we need to come back? if we reach an agreement? i'd just wanted to ask if it could be handled through staff.
>> if it is filed, it has to come back. >> it does not have to come back. >> we have a final motion. we will repeat the motion. there is not a motion for continuance currently. we will not be calling it back up. we heard from both parties to make a decision today and whatever. that is what i heard i am sorry. it is going on forever. >> i think we should clarify the motion >> let's clarify the motion. >> the motion is the building should be no higher than 33 feet with -- the commission does not
grant it. with the recommendation that it would be possible to gain some additional square footage for the building. >> i agree with that being the only parameter. if project sponsor feels fit into 33 feet and four floors, that is up to them. it is probably not possible. it is little -- >> i think it is unfortunate it is going away. i am supportive of the motion completely, and if you look at
some of them, it is easier to understand why people are so concerned about these issues, because we saw a lot of areas go from blue-collar working middle- class neighborhoods to neighborhoods that were impossible for the average san franciscan to afford. >> it does not exceed 33 feet in height. it does not mention floor. we recommend the possibilities of a variance to allow some additional square footage to the building.
>> that is fine with me. >> i guess we are ready to begin item number 16. we are ready. >> good evening. this is a request for a mandatory discretion are reviewed to develop medical can of those facilities between first and second streets. they will not allow smoking on site, and they will not alter the exterior of the building. it is not within 1,000 feet of
any school. a concern did arise that a youth leadership center is near, but the zoning determine that is not the case. it is located in one of the few areas where they can meet the requirements. the sponsor has been meeting with concerned neighbors and has agreed to conditions the commission may wish to include. those include no campus smoking -- cannibus smoking. the project sponsor would appoint a community liaison. the department has received three letters in opposition to the project and recommend you approve the project with conditions as the